Skip to end of metadata
-
Created by Former user (Deleted), last modified on Mar 23, 2017
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 2
Next »
Date
2017-03-23
Status of Minutes
DRAFT
Approved at: <<Insert link to minutes showing approval>>
Attendees
Voting
- Andrew Hughes
- Harri Honko
- Jim Pasquale
- Mary Hodder
- Mark Lizar
- Iain Henderson
Non-Voting
Discussion Items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|
4 mins | | Former user (Deleted) | |
1 min | | All | Please review these blogs offline for current status on Kantara and all the DG/WG: |
5 min | - Status of Consent Receipt Specification v1
| Former user (Deleted) | - email Ballot results:
Motion is approved: "To approve the Draft Recommendation 'Consent Receipt Specification v1.0.0 DRAFT 3' for Leadership Council certification towards an All Member Ballot"
YES: Iain, Harri, Mark, John, Jim NO: none ABSTAIN: Andrew (by prior agreement with the WG)
5 YES out of 7 eligible voting participants
|
40 min | | All | - - discuss approach and schedule for next round of specification enhancements
- a contributions period - a period of consolidation and combination of the contributions - a period of WG Editor work - Public review etc - confirmation of change request tracking tool (GitHub Issues unless strong objection)
Harri - Their EU-based lawyer commented that the CR v1.0 draft has elements that are based on UK/US Common Law, rather than civil codes (GDPR)
- e.g. Consents have to be better atomized - so that over time, is there an accumulation of receipts? or accumulation of consents?
- The implementation detail might be: is there a concept of dynamic evaluation of consented purposes? Or is it static at transaction time? e.g. if a purpose or consent is changed at a later date, are the original receipts canceled and re-issued? is the original updated? is there a 'diff' receipt that only covers the different scope?
- Mary
- The caution about "Purposes lists" and "Sensitive data types" needs to be resolved - must be very cautious about how these are displayed to the user, especially if it's sensitive data - need to create recommendations
- Mark
- Need to set up a backlog - and define a work plan and schedule
- Set a date for CR v1.1
- Need to write guidance on spec usage
- Need consensus on
- Prioritization of backlog
- Need to consider any issues that are used for GDPR implementation
- The original agreement was to do 6-month epics
- Andrew to try to get the comments from the public review into github
|
| Comments to ICO Consent Drafts | Mark | - Please have comments to Mark by Sunday EOD
- Mark to consolidate and circulate
- Next call a WG motion to approve the consolidated comments for submission on March 31
- CIS WG goal: to highlight the work of the CIS and CR specification
- Mark has sent a request to personal data community to contribute
|
| Submitting the work to ISO | Mark | - The WG charter states that the WG outputs should be contributed to ISO - how to proceed?
- Should we update the charter to remove this? Or identify new paths to other SDOs like BSI? or what?
- Basically review the purpose of the consent work in this WG
- Comment: we should hold off until v1.1
- Mark to send a note to the list and ask the question
|